Based on a historical perspective the one argument made for the construction of the Panama Canal is that "<u>it would allow ships to move swiftly from the Atlantic and the pacific in the event of a war."</u>
<h3>The Construction of Panama Canal.</h3>
The construction of the Panama canal was done in 1914 and covers about 82 km of waterway in Panama that connects the Atlantic Ocean with the Pacific Ocean and splits up North and South America.
The Panama Canal construction was essential for the political economy of the United States it cuts across the Isthmus of Panama which serves as a conduit for maritime trade.
There are various reasons or arguments for the construction of the Panama canal.
<h3>The reasons for building the Panama canal are</h3>
- It would prevent warfare among competing countries
- It would lessen the distance, cost, and time it took for ships to carry cargo between the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans
- It would eliminate the danger of earthquakes in Nicaragua.
Hence, in this case, it is concluded that the correct answer is "<u>it would allow ships to move swiftly from the Atlantic and the pacific in the event of a war."</u>
Learn more about Panama Canal here: brainly.com/question/26573102
#SPJ1
Answer:
C
Explanation:
Price and quantity variances move in the same direction. If one is favorable, the others will be as well. This is because there is a direct relationship between price and quantity. If one is favourable the other is likely to be favourable and if one is adverse the other is likely to be adverse.
<span>True. In the Wealth of Nations 1776 Adam Smith wrote that markets did not need governments to control them because of the "invisible hand" of competition. Smith focused on how different pricing and distribution within an economy are dispersed using an invisible hand idea. Some economists state that the uneven distribution and market happenings frustrate the </span>government which lead to unwanted shortages and surpluses of items.
<span>This is referred to as "Res judicata".
</span>
Res judicata is a Latin expression which means "a thing decided". It is a precedent-based law principle intended to avert relitigation of cases between similar gatherings with respect to similar issues and save the coupling idea of the court's choice. Once a last judgment has been come to in a claim, consequent judges who are given a suit that is indistinguishable to or considerably the same as the prior one will apply the regulation of res judicata to maintain the impact of the primary judgment.
